Below is Mr Ostrow's response to my last comment, which I accidently sent to Mr Ostrow instead of the list.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:17 AM Subject: Re: Changing my mind about the way I look at art To: imago Asthetik <[email protected]>, Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> Seemingly, mr miller does not he would have us reflect on our experience rather than on the stimuli he does not seem to recognize that those works we call art are complex networks (assemblages) of stimulus and signs- and that these form the continuous text of the work which in many cases can only be experienced and the fragmented texts which we use to understand that experience these two components are neither equal or symmetrically arrayed and are often in conflict with one another On 8/28/09 11:03 AM, "imago Asthetik" <[email protected]> wrote: Might not these be seen as the complimentary positions : experience and interpretation (self-reflection and analysis) I would think so, yes. On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> wrote: Might not these be seen as the complimentary positions : experience and interpretation (self-reflection and analysis) On 8/28/09 10:46 AM, "imago Asthetik" <[email protected]> wrote: Could you elaborate upon the tension you see between Bernstein and Adorno, Mr Miller? I am not sure I see it, myself. I do not think either I or Bernstein would deny that a work by De Hooch is fundamentally different from a work by Vermeer. The problem you point to seems to be one of interpretation and criticism (and here, I think Bernstein has a tendency to dissolve the singularity of an artwork into the universality of concept, in such a way, that he seems to take the former to be identical with the latter; a fine form of Hegelian thinking, to be sure, but not without its problems), rather than a point about ways of seeing and experience. On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected] >wrote: > A fascinating response from Imago Asthetik. > > On the one hand, from reading Adorno, he has learned to emphasize " the > non- > or anti-discursive > character of visual art and music, in connection with its 'bodily' > presence". > > An excellent prescription - and a fine example of "changing my mind about > the > way I look at art". Although, one wouldn't necessarily need to read > Adorno, > or even be literate, to adopt this approach. > > But, on the other hand, he wants to follow J. M. Bernstein's discourse when > looking at 17th C. Dutch paintings: > > "De Hooch can paint the world because the world depicted is the constant > crossing of nature as matter and order, and culture as matter and order. De > Hooch's painterly materialism continually works to dissolve any permanent > boundary between nature and culture, between subjective lilves ant the > material conditions of those lives, without > ever denying the difference between them." > > So, it seems that he has already forgotten Adorno's wise lesson. > > "Matter", "nature", "order", and "culture" are all part of Bernstein's > discourse. (and perhaps we should all read "Against Voluptuous Bodies" to > examine them) > > The various paintings by De Hooch, Vermeer, etc are something completely > different. > > ***************************************************************** > > >I must finish a few things, so I cannot spend too much time on this > message. > But let me offer a fast outline of 'changing my mind.' > In calling attention to both the manner in which De hooch uses his paint > (e.g. painting a brick wall), and the choice of subject, Bernstein's > argument transformed the way I actually look at Dutch painting in General > (Greenaways recent film, Nightwatching had a similar effect for me viz > Rembrant's Night Watch). I would not say that it licensed me to > disregard some set of prejudices I entertained prior to seeing Dutch > painting, but it did call my attention to a set of concerns which were not > apparent to me, and which, once entertained, produce a completely different > way of seeing, and a different aesthetic experience. > > Adornos work on aesthetics has had a rather profound effect on the way I > relate to art, and it would be difficult for me to summarize all of the > transformations, tensions, and contradictions, his work has generated for > me. Suffice it to say, his emphasis of the non- or anti-discursive > character of visual art and music, in connection with its 'bodily' presence > (the orchestration and interpretation involved in performance, the > thing-like character of an artwork that, in its stubborn refusal to express > some concept, some purpose or use-value, escapes the category of 'thing,' > the letter and syntax of the text, the weight of paint upon a canvas), > involves a particular kind of comportment towards art, which I have not > seen > very many theorists or artists address, and which now seem to me to be > fundamental to any encounter with it. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click for quotes on adjustable mortgages. > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxQs3kBUoXGFNCCNRT7ltCETF > OVNqdVTYW9PtaMBxbezDIFedrs8q0/ --
